PRFM1603 Chap.10 Deep Mapping, Haunting, and Polyvocal Place
Deep Mapping, Haunting, and Polyvocal Place
Deep mapping gathers heterogeneous traces of place across time, medium and perspective. It may combine routes, archival fragments, oral accounts, sensory notes, images and material remains, but accumulation alone does not make the method deep. The map must preserve provenance, conflict and absence rather than smoothing them into one authoritative story.
Polyvocality holds distinct voices beside one another without pretending they are equivalent or fully recoverable. Haunting names how unresolved histories or absences press on the present. This chapter develops a source weave that tracks origin, authority, relation and gap. Performance then translates selected relations into sequence, sound or movement while keeping the difference among sources legible.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Deep mapping as layered inquiry
- 02
Provenance across different media
- 03
Polyvocality without false equivalence
- 04
Haunting as pressure of absence
- 05
Conflict and gap as evidence
- 06
Translating a source weave into performance
Worked example · free
Construct a polyvocal source weave
- 1Record who produced each account, when, for what purpose and under what access or reuse conditions.
- 1Place the accounts in parallel and specify the exact point of conflict instead of merging them into an average narrative.
- 1Treat the missing marker as a present condition to investigate, not proof of a single explanation.
- 1Choose a form that preserves attribution and gap, such as alternating routes or separated voices, with permission for any living contribution.
Key terms
- Deep map
- A layered representation of place that connects heterogeneous evidence while retaining provenance, conflict and incompleteness.
- Polyvocality
- The presence of distinct voices or perspectives without forcing them into one seamless authority.
- Provenance
- The origin, authorship, custody and conditions through which a source reached the present inquiry.
- Haunting
- The felt pressure of unresolved history, absence or suppressed relation within present place.
- Source weave
- A designed arrangement showing how different records, voices, traces and gaps relate without collapsing together.
Deep Mapping, Haunting, and Polyvocal Place FAQ
How is deep mapping different from collecting many facts?
Depth comes from relation and provenance, not volume. A deep map shows how sources were produced, where they agree or conflict, who has authority and what remains absent. A scrapbook can contain many items yet leave their relationships unexplained. Selective, well-attributed layers often produce a stronger inquiry than indiscriminate accumulation.
Does polyvocality mean all voices have equal authority?
No. Voices can remain distinct while their different authority, evidence and stakes are made explicit. An official archive, a community memory and an observer note do not become interchangeable because they share a page. Polyvocal work resists a single totalising account but still evaluates provenance, consent and the right to speak.
How can absence become evidence?
Absence matters when its conditions are investigated. A missing marker, deleted name or unavailable record may show how public memory is organised, but it does not automatically prove why the absence occurred. Describe what is missing, how you know, which explanations are supported and which remain questions. Do not fill the gap with invented testimony.
Assessment move
Create a source table before designing the map. Give each item a provenance note, authority note, key claim, relationship to other items and one unresolved gap. Use colour or position to keep media and voices distinct. Next, draw links only where you can state the relation as a verb: confirms, contests, omits, reframes or survives alongside.
Choose one cluster for performance translation and preserve its attributions in the form. Review whether a dramatic effect has erased uncertainty or elevated the maker voice above the sources. In writing, analyse a conflict or gap as part of the argument instead of treating completeness as the measure of success. Audit the map for visual hierarchy as well as factual accuracy.
Size, colour, order and repetition can make an institutional source appear more authoritative even when the text describes several voices as parallel. Ask whether a gap has been made visible or filled by the most dramatic artist response. Invite a reader to trace every claim back to provenance without your explanation. Repair any layer whose origin or permission is unclear.
Then construct a short counter-map that begins from the least visible authorised source and compare the relations that become prominent. The purpose is not to reverse one hierarchy mechanically but to understand how form organises evidence. In the exegesis, state which uncertainty remains and why the performance preserves it rather than promising recovery or resolution.
Keep a version history of the map so removed labels, challenged interpretations and newly restricted material remain accountable decisions rather than disappearing from the process record.
